“Chauranga”… A gently hypnotic drama about fiery issues

Why watch Chauranga when a lot of what it’s about – pig-herding, love across caste lines, the constant tensions between Dalits and the people who won’t treat them as equals, the young boy who decides enough is enough – was already seen in Nagraj Manjule’s Marathi drama Fandry? One reason could be the mood the director, Bikas Ranjan Mishra, conjures up. The film weaves a quiet, hypnotic spell. If Fandry was a volcano, Chauranga is an idyllic picnic spot that invites us to spend some ninety minutes with these characters. It doesn’t set out to grab us by the collar till we choke with indignation at what is still the reality in rural India. It just tells a story, which begins when Bajrangi (Riddhi Sen), a Dalit boy who’s studying in the city, returns home because his school has closed down for a few days. The reason for the school-closing is right out of a short story. The principal’s daughter is getting married. The guests need a place to stay, after all.

You’d think Bajrangi, with his books, is destined for a different life – but this is a film with a few surprises. One of them is that for some people, no matter what steps they take, there’s no guarantee that they will rise. Whatever happens to them, it’s just a matter of dumb luck – sometimes, it’s just being able to run fast enough to catch a train. This shot echoes an earlier one where a boy (Bajrangi’s brother Santu, played by Soham Maitra) attempted to board a moving vehicle but kept failing. There’s another effective echo. Early on, when Bajrangi falls at the feet of the upper-caste Dhaval (Sanjay Suri), the village headman, the latter moves backwards so that Bajrangi’s hands don’t actually touch his feet. But later, when he suspects Bajrangi of wrongdoing, his feet land squarely on the lad. Concepts like untouchability do not matter when you’re in the mood for a little oppression. Or a little extra-marital sex. Dhaval keeps trysting with Dhaniya (Tannishtha Chatterjee), mother of Bajrangi and Santu. But this isn’t just a Dalit thing. It’s a woman thing too. Dhaval’s wife (Arpita Pal) ends up equally exploited. Or maybe it’s worse. The man who exploits her is an old, blind priest (a ghoulish Dhritiman Chatterjee).

That the priest is blind is probably some sort of symbolism. Here’s another, having to do with the film’s title. Bajrangi whips out a pen that writes in four colours. Colour is varna, which also refers to caste. And when Bajrangi says he’ll write Santu’s love letter (to an upper-caste girl) in red, Santu replies, “Lekin woh to khoon ka rang hota hai na?” But none of these Drama 101 devices derail the movie. The director has a firm hold on the proceedings – and the volume knob. Someone dies of snakebite. The body is dropped unceremoniously into a lake. You expect a furore around the missing person. But… nothing. Sometimes, at picnics, people wander off. It’s like that. You’d think Dhaval’s wife might throw a tantrum or two about his infidelity. Again, nothing. The only time the film gets dramatic is towards the end. It has to do with that love letter. It also has to do with Udaan. Only, this flight to freedom doesn’t come with a crescendo on the soundtrack. Who knows what lies ahead?

With better casting, Chauranga may have been a vastly better movie. Suri isn’t bad, but there’s something missing. It probably has to do with the innate gentleness and goodness the actor always projects. Dhaval may be the first feudal chieftain in Hindi cinema who’d rather be watching Aastha TV. But casting, sometimes, is a question of who’s producing the film (Suri is a co-producer), and I was glad Chauranga got made – if only as a show-reel for the director. He gives us tradition, superstition, caste wars – everything that Benegal gave us in the 1970s. He gives us Katrina Kaif, Salman Khan, and a discussion about breast development in the most scholarly possible language – if sex education began airing on Doordarshan’s news channels, this is how it would be. And he sprinkles a bit of magic over all this. Water from a hand pump dries up, as if in punishment. And there’s a snake, which hasn’t been good news for humans ever since the first two encountered one. It all comes together – a little in the heart, a little in the head. You leave the theatre not educated, not whipped into righteous fury, but with the feeling that you’ve closed a book you rather liked.

Hey Rangan, can you review Malayalam movie Charlie starring Dulquer Salman and Parvathy. At least a bullet point one will do. Its one of the best movies released recently. I’m sure you are gonna love it, for me it was far better than Ustad Hotel. Watch out for the excellent art work, dop and a wonderful storytelling.

There were such positive reviews for Charlie which was what led us to watch it in a huge group over the holidays. But we were disappointed. The colourful visuals and the clever cinematography (it looked like a Kerala tourism documentary) did not make up for what felt (to us) like a lack of a story, unbelievable characters and over-acting (he just has the same dumb looking smile all the time) from the male lead. ‘Charlie’ has kinda put me off (I hope it is temporary) not just the “New Generation” Malayalam movie but even (never thought I’d see the day) Dulquer Salman.

We felt betrayed by the good reviews, even thought perhaps that they had been bought. But then again, maybe not. Because this is the second comment I’m seeing in this blog praising Charlie. Sigh. Each one of us do see a completely different movie.

Tonks, When a thief storms into Charlie’s home, Charlie scares the s**t out of him and then offers a drink and out of craziness goes out to rob with him. This quirkiness and the way he do things is what it attracted me.

Charlie’s a guy who wants to bring a smile on other peoples face. He doesn’t say it plainly but shows throughout the movie.

tonks, not all that glitters is gold. not all the “new age malayalam cinema” is good. Ustad Hotel, to me, was a confused, directionless, cliched movie. you knew the ending from the hero intro scenes itself. Diamond Necklace too, was good only for the twists towards the climax, otherwise predictable and mundane. 1983 was very good though.

Oh I don’t know about that. I absolutely loved ‘Ustad Hotel’. And to a huge extent ‘Diamond Necklace’ too (its a movie that teaches a moral : the dangers of living beyond your means, without being in the least preachy, I thought). And ‘1983’ for its nostalgia (and also we really identified with bits of it because we have a member in the family who was seriously into cricket in school). So as a rule I love these new age movies, in that these days we have such a wide variety of themes. ‘Charlie’ was the exception : great movie visually, but the characterisations failed to move me.

Tonks, i sort of agree with you about charlie. even though it was visually great and the concept was very novel, i just couldnt get into the spirit of the narrative or the characters. it was quite boring

Premam was the ultimate new gen smash for me. It represented everything that was good (and maybe some things that are bad) about the new gen malayalam cinema. I have never seen a Malayalam film so many times (liked it) recently as i did that film.

Chauranga – talk about the priest ‘getting his goat’ “on” – squirmed and then chuckled at the directors’ audacity (producers approval) to add those small details. If this is still feudal India, that’s millions of oppressed people – that’s a book that needs closing.

Apex, I am not sure about all South Indian movies, but the Malayalam movies lately are definitely all well made and original. Each one seems to have a different theme. There are a lot of Malayalis who prefer the older, more realistic and traditional, family drama type of Malayalam movies (my husband and many of my cousins do so). They feel there is an artificiality, a westernisation about the newer movies that is not true to Kerala culture (which to some extent is true : they are perhaps more glamorous than reality) but I like their varied themes. And perhaps so will non Malayalees. You can definitely try them. I suggest “Bangalore days” , “Premam” and “Ustad Hotel” to begin with 🙂 .

Charlie i thought was shallow and pretentious apart from the decent music by Gopi Super and excellent camera work by Jomon. T. John, and it doesn’t help that it is directed by Martin Prakkat who hitherto has worked only with Mammooty and Dulquer Salman. This film blatantly looked like an attempt to build a cool image for Dulquer Salman, trying to mystify the character played by him and as an extension Dulquer himself. There is also this punch dialogue where Charlie/Dulquer says that turning back and walking in slo-mo after delivering gravity defying punches, where the baddies are dispatched to the different corners of the screen and punch dialogues are not his cup of tea. Now, how meta is that? All the characters around him are in constant awe of him and speak reverentially about him, almost deifying him, there is this song which actually goes ‘Devasuthane nee’ which translates to Son of God. Now that leaves me wondering if Dulquer is the son who is God?